Education and Inspections Bill - Standing Committee E

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Education and Inspections Bill

Clause 2 - Duties in relation to diversity and choice

Amendment proposed [28 March]: No. 59, in page 2, line 10, after ‘(3A)’, insert the words
‘Subject always to the overriding requirements of efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of education,’.—[Sarah Teather.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Christopher Chope: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 161, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, after ‘schools’, insert
‘, including a range of provision for children with special education needs’.
No. 178, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from ‘schools’ to end of line 13 and insert—
‘(b)securing diversity of educational and curriculum provision within schools and colleges;
(c)increasing opportunities for parental and pupil choice; and
(d)value for money.’.
No. 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert
‘and
(c)ensuring the spread of best practice adopted in the best performing schools.
(3B)For the purposes of section 14(3A), “best performing schools” means schools in the first quartile nationally of the value added measure of school performance.’.
No. 88, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert
‘and
(c)ensuring that at least 10 per cent. of school places are provided by one or more of the following types of school—
(i)foundation school with a foundation;
(ii)academy;
(iii)voluntary-aided or voluntary-controlled school.’.
No. 97, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert
‘and
(c)ensuring that the education provided in schools in its area shall contribute to social inclusion and community cohesion in that area and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.’.
No. 98, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert
‘and
(c)ensuring fair access for all pupils in its area to opportunities for education according to their educational needs and wellbeing.’.

Jacqui Smith: I welcome you to our proceedings, Mr. Chope. I am sure that it will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this Committee.
We had some good debates on Tuesday and made some progress, although it could be described as being of quality rather than quantity. Nevertheless, we got up to debating the amendments to clause 2, which requires local authorities to have regard to the needs and wishes of parents and local communities when planning on securing the provision of schools in their area. Specifically, they will have to do so with a view to ensuring a diverse range of schools to meet local needs and with a view to maximising the opportunities for choice among good schools for parents. That duty will bite, for example, when the authority undertakes planning through the children and young people’s plan, or when it thinks about specific school organisational planning issues. It will be supported in future by considerable investment in, for example, the “building schools for the future” programme, which will allow local authorities to take a fundamental look at provision in their area and which will give them the opportunity to make radical changes, backed with the necessary capital investment.
Those duties are absolutely key to delivering a school system that is shaped by parents, and for the first time local authorities will have to find out parents’ wishes in relation to schools and extended services and reflect those wishes in their strategic plans. The effect of the clause, taken together with the provisions in clause 1 and in clause 3, which we shall debate this morning, will be to make the system more responsive. Depending on the nature and level of parental demand, that could mean bringing pressure to bear on failing or coasting schools to improve standards; it could mean encouraging schools to federate to improve; encouraging popular schools to expand; and enabling new and innovative school partners to come into the local system by holding a competition for a new school.

John Hayes: The Minister will recall that we had a lengthy debate on school expansion in an earlier sitting. Different views were put; views were put from my left about the need to limit expansion. What limits would the Minister place on the capacity of a popular school to expand?

Jacqui Smith: We have been clear since the Education Act 2002 that there should be a presumption that good schools should be able to propose expansion provisions. There should be a presumption that the decision makers—the school organisation committees, at the moment, or the adjudicator—should allow those expansions to go ahead. Under the Bill, we are moving that decision-making process to the local authority. Of course, it makes sense when making that decision that the benefits of that particular expansion be borne in mind, just as happens at present, but the expansion should also be considered in the context of overall standards in an area. The Government and I are much more favourably disposed to expansion than the hon. Members for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) suggested when we debated the subject on Tuesday.

James Clappison: I have heard what the right hon. Lady said about a presumption in favour of allowing good schools to expand. How does that fit with what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading about refusing selective and partially selective schools, which are very often among the good schools, the opportunity to expand?

Jacqui Smith: It fits very clearly with the position that we have taken as a Government, which is that we do not want new methods of selection by ability. Allowing the sort of expansion that the hon. Gentleman mentions would increase the amount of selection by ability.

Edward Leigh: I do not see why there should be a presumption in favour or otherwise. Would it not be easier to have a system in which such schools were funded through money that followed the pupil? If the school wanted to expand, it would expand. If it were unpopular, it might contract and, in an extreme case, close. I do not understand why the local authority would have to be involved at all. Why could there not be full parent power?

Jacqui Smith: We largely have a system in which funding follows the pupil. Since 1997, we have considerably enhanced the ability of the local system to act in a dynamic way so that popular and successful schools are able to expand, and the local authority has a responsibility to deal with the impacts of that in respect of places in other schools.
The hon. Gentleman argues for a completely unplanned local system. I do not believe that a strategic planning authority at a local level should have no role. Such an authority would be unlikely to ensure the sorts of results that we want for young people. That is why we maintain the view that that strategic planning of school places, particularly given the fact that there may well be demographic pressures in certain areas, is a suitable role for a local authority.

Nadine Dorries: We are not talking about children with special needs. As we know, many teachers, particularly head teachers, and parents would love to see the money allocated—[Interruption.] I am terribly sorry.

Jacqui Smith: I tell you what—I shall carry on for now.

Robert Wilson: The Minister may remember my correspondence with her about a primary school in my constituency. In what circumstances would there be surplus places, for example? They were the reason given for not allowing that local primary school to expand. Would that happen in future?

Jacqui Smith: I shall address the issue of surplus places in a moment.
I shall finish the point that I was making about the dynamism of the local system. Making the system more responsive, diverse and able to meet parents’ choices might also be done by enabling independent  schools to join the maintained sector. However, in every case it will mean that local authorities will seek actively to maximise the choice for parents.

Edward Leigh: The Minister made a very interesting comment about the independent sector. Does she recognise that I and people like me are strongly opposed to social apartheid in education? We want to move to a continental system in which effectively everybody wants to go to a state school, but if they choose to go to a private school, because the state funds such schools—by paying teachers’ salaries, for example, as in France—they are virtually free. So there will be an école privée and an école d’état in a village and they will both be effectively free. There is no social apartheid as in this country.

Jacqui Smith: We all want to ensure that there is no social apartheid in our school system. Significantly, as the Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement, the Government want to ensure that the opportunities and funding in our state school system reflect those in our private school system.
Was the hon. Gentleman harking back to previous Conservative policies and trying to resurrect the pupil passport? It did sound a little as though he was arguing for giving public money to parents to spend in the private system. In May 2005, we won the argument on that—such a move would mean taking money from the state education system to subsidise the private system. There are some interesting dynamics among Conservative Members in respect of the different orientations that they are putting on their party’s policy at the moment. I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to develop those differences as we go along.

James Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: Yes—let us see whether we can get yet another interpretation of Conservative policy.

James Clappison: The Minister makes an interesting case. May I offer a slight word of advice? I do not think that she is in the best place to talk about different orientations of policy in a party, but I shall pass over that.
One of her party’s policies on social segregation which I strongly agree with is the partnership that the Government have sought with the independent sector. Will the Minister tell us how much money has been made available to support that partnership between the state and independent sectors? It is one of her own policies.

Jacqui Smith: I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman now, because I do not know the figure off the top of my head, but I shall write to him and the rest of the Committee to identify not only the money that we have spent but some of the good projects that have been supported through the independent-state school partnership that this Government, as he rightly says, introduced precisely in order to be confident that we are drafting in capacity, good ideas and innovation from wherever they exist in the education system,  public or private. We have done so for the benefit of the state education system and the children and young people within it.
We had an interesting discussion on Tuesday about the nature of choice and diversity. It is useful to consider the expected impact of the clause by thinking about how it adds to the current legislative position. What do we expect to be the marginal impact of what we are doing?
We can see a gradual evolution in thought on the provision of schools through the education Acts of the past 60 years. The new duties in clause 2 are imposed by means of an amendment to section 14 of the Education Act 1996, which placed a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient schools. The 1996 Act defined such schools as
“sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide for all pupils the opportunity of appropriate education.”
Now we are adding to that definition the principles of diversity of provision and increased opportunity for parental choice. In the 1996 Act, the standard was to have enough places in schools, largely provided directly by local authorities. The Government no longer believe that that is how we should approach the system. Now we seek to achieve a range of high-quality schools, with new providers and partners supporting schools that local authorities will positively encourage as commissioners rather than providing directly.
I come to the points made by the hon. Members for Brent, East and for Leeds, North-West, who challenged the Government on choice. We came to an important dividing line in the discussion on choice. As the Prime Minister said, choice is not unlimited. However, let us be quite clear: it already exists in the education system; it exists for those who can afford to move house or pay to enter the private sector.
We have a policy choice before us, have we not? We must choose whether to task local authorities with maximising opportunities for parents, children and young people to choose within the state education system or to throw up our hands and say that it is all too difficult, we can never achieve perfect choice, so we ought to back off. That appeared to be one of the approaches taken by Liberal Democrats.
I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West to his position on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and I challenged him, because it seemed that he was almost suggesting that we need to constrain choice because something terrible happens if parents are allowed to choose: they want to choose good schools for their children. He seemed to be suggesting that we should not let that happen.

Greg Mulholland: As the Minister well knows, that is not what I said at all. The Liberal Democrats are simply putting a challenge to her. A considerable body of evidence suggests that the kind of increased choice that the Bill would allow leads to increased social segregation. We are asking whether there is a limit and whether she will acknowledge that.

Jacqui Smith: I am saying that social segregation stems more from the fact that we have not succeeded in maximising choice for those who cannot access it. One can go in two directions: one can constrain choice or one can task local authorities, as we are in the Bill, with maximising choice for those who have not yet been able to access it.

John Hayes: I have with me the words of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West from our previous sitting, although I am sure that he regrets them now. As the Minister noted, he seemed to want to limit choice. He said that choice leads to the greater popularity of good schools, but that that could not possibly “be a good thing” and that it
“must work to the detriment of less popular schools”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 March 2006; c. 69.]
He is on the record as saying that, so we have him bang to rights. On this occasion, therefore, I really must support the Minister and I hope that she will accept that support in the spirit in which it is given.

Jacqui Smith: I always accept the hon. Gentleman’s support in the spirit in which it is given; we can always find common ground on these issues.

Nick Gibb: Before the Minister moves on to another subject, let me pick her up on her comment that local authorities will act as a commissioner, not a provider. That was clearly set out in the White Paper, which says that the role of
“the local authority will change from provider to commissioner.”
Will she explain, therefore, why the Secretary of State, in a letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee, said that
“there may be occasions where a community school might best meet local needs.”?
If so, a local authority could enter such a school in a competition, which would make the local authority not only a commissioner, but a provider.

Jacqui Smith: I suspect that we shall debate the reasons for that at some length on clause 7. Having listened to representations from not only my hon. Friends and Labour local government, but the whole cross-party Local Government Association, we recognise that it might sometimes be most appropriate for a local authority directly to provide a community school to enable parents to exercise a view and to ensure that there is a diverse range of schools—precisely the objectives that we are discussing on this clause.
Incidentally, I was not changing the subject, but moving on to consider hon. Members’ amendments. Amendments Nos. 59 and 178, tabled by the hon. Members for Brent, East and for Leeds, North-West, relate to the important issues of efficiency and effectiveness. It is vital to ensure that local authorities use every penny of taxpayers’ money effectively and achieve the best value for money. Amendment No. 178  proposes that we include the words “value for money”, while amendment No. 178 proposes that we include the words
“Subject always to the overriding requirements of efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of education”,
but it would be superfluous to do so.
Under the Local Government Act 1999, local authorities are already under a duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which they exercise their functions and to have regard to a combination of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and the needs and expectations of service users. In addition, the Audit Commission reports annually on local authorities’ use of resources, so they are held to account in that way, too.

Sarah Teather: What should local authorities do when those duties conflict, as is quite possible with falling school rolls?

Jacqui Smith: I was coming to precisely the point that the hon. Lady made about surplus places, which has been taken up this morning. Local authorities are responsible for planning school places in their areas and have the duty, as I outlined, to ensure that there are sufficient places and that high-quality education is provided in a cost-effective way. We expect local authorities to take parental preferences into account in that planning. Some spare capacity is necessary for parental choice, but it must be in schools that people want to use, not left pooling in unpopular or poorly performing schools. Maintaining surplus places in unpopular schools does not enhance parental choice. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] The removal of surplus places can sometimes release resources precisely to enable more popular schools to expand, in order increasingly to accommodate parental preference. Opposition Members may say, “Hear, hear”, but it is hard for me to envisage who would carry out that strategic planning function, if not the local authority, which has precisely that role.

Edward Leigh: The marketplace.

Jacqui Smith: Oh, the marketplace.

Christopher Chope: Order. The Minister is speaking. If hon. Members wish to intervene, they must catch her eye.

Jacqui Smith: As we approach the local government elections, I am looking forward to the slogan “Don’t vote Tory—vote for the marketplace instead, because you don’t need Tory local councillors”.
It is of course the role of local authorities to set acceptable levels of surplus places or to manage them. Those are local matters that need local solutions. In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Brent, East, I am not arguing that locally elected politicians do not have difficult decisions to make about local priorities. That is what they are elected to do and that is an appropriate role for local government.

John Hayes: As a former member of an LEA, I well remember grappling with the issue of surplus places over many years. I accept the Minister’s point about the need to deal with such matters strategically. However, I am sure that she will acknowledge that local authorities must be encouraged to take that action where necessary, because there is a history of local authorities dragging their feet over surplus places. What additional measures will the Minister put in place to ensure that local authorities rise to that challenge?

Jacqui Smith: Turning a spotlight on surplus places in different local authorities—as we do annually—is an important way of ensuring public accountability for how local authorities address the issue. Local government has the role in question. Of course it is for central Government to help advise local authorities on how to deal with the issue. That is the reason we published a toolkit—last year or the year before, I think—which provided advice and assistance on dealing with some of the tricky issues associated with falling rolls and what that means for surplus places. The advice contains some imaginative ideas on how to use surplus capacity for extended provision and how to encourage federation to address the problem. The right role for the Government is to hold local authorities to account and to provide that advice. In the end, however, decisions about school organisation should rightly be made locally.
In amendment No. 178, Liberal Democrat Members argue for ensuring
“diversity of educational and curriculum provision within schools and colleges”.
I am certainly not unsympathetic to that amendment, but would resist it because it is not appropriate in relation to the functions that we are discussing and because it is technically wrong. However, the Government are of course convinced of the importance of a broad-based and balanced curriculum in promoting achievement for all. The national curriculum reflects that. We believe that young people must have a rigorous and stretching educational experience at school and we have consistently taken the view that the curriculum must provide a rich and varied context for learning. I strongly agree with the need for diversity, and we have increased the flexibility in the curriculum to enable schools to make significant choices about what they provide and, how and when it is delivered, particularly in 14 to 19 education.
We spelt out our intention to increase considerably the choices available for young people between the ages of 14 and 19, in our 14 to 19 White Paper and the implementation plan that we published last autumn. We aim to do that by developing new qualifications, such as the specialised diplomas—we will have the opportunity to discuss them in more detail when we come to the curriculum clauses—and by recognising that the scope of those new qualifications makes it unlikely that a single institution or school will be able to deliver to those opportunities to all its young people, thereby driving the need for collaboration between schools, and between school and colleges.  Later on in the Bill, we will consider a clause that more clearly ensures that that collaboration between FE colleges and schools will happen.

John Hayes: I know that we will debate those matters in greater length when we come to the relevant part of the Bill, but it might be appropriate for the Minister to take this opportunity to say a word or two more on the matter. She is right about collaboration. Does she envisage that that collaboration would be as wide as to encourage employer involvement? Would she look also at ways in which funding could be shared, as well as at jointly managed projects, and perhaps jointly managed institutions, in order to deliver maximum effectiveness and to fulfil our, I think, mutual desire to elevate vocational education in the curriculum?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, all those elements would be suitable ways forward, and, in fact, many of them exist already in some of the pathfinder 14 to 19 projects that we have been supporting. There have been some amazing transformations in the opportunities for 14 to 19-year-olds because institutions are bringing in employers and work-based learning, and finding new ways, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, of co-ordinating and pooling resources. I am sure that we will get into that in more detail.
On an important technical point about the amendment relating to local authorities’ duties, I remind the Committee that post-16 provision is the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council, not local authorities. That is why the amendment technically is unacceptable.
Amendment No. 88 would specify the mix of provision available in local authority areas, and require those local authorities to allocate at least 10 per cent. of all places to foundation and voluntary schools, and academies. First, the amendment is unnecessary because, currently, only four local authorities have less than 10 per cent. of their secondary level places in foundation and voluntary schools. Already, in several authorities, foundation and voluntary schools are in the majority.
The second reason that I am unwilling to accept the amendment is that I do not believe that a top-down mechanistic approach to securing diversity—a sort of direction from the centre—is the best way of improving pupils’ outcomes.

Edward Leigh: I agree.

Jacqui Smith: I am thrown slightly by the warm waves of approbation coming from the hon. Gentleman. He must stop putting me off my stride by agreeing with me—it really is not fair.
We are already, as I suggested, developing a diverse school system. One third of our secondary schools are foundation schools or are voluntary aided. Specialist schools in particular have drawn enormous energy from the drive and expertise of their sponsors in developing their individual character and ethos, and  we have announced recently that there are now 100 academies either open or in the pipeline—halfway to the established target of 200.

James Clappison: On that point—

Jacqui Smith: I apologise for forgetting—I think that I was asked about that on Tuesday by the hon. Gentleman.

James Clappison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope that I have not pre-empted her. She is right to say that the Government have set a target of 200 academies by 2010 as part of what she has described as “choice and diversity”. The question to which I would like an answer, and that I believe I asked on Tuesday is: how many of the new foundation schools does she expect to see?

Jacqui Smith: If I remember rightly, the hon. Gentleman asked me about academies, and I think I answered him—100 are open or in the pipeline. To a certain extent the hon. Gentleman’s question—and I suspect that he is probably talking about the new trust schools, in particular—belies the centralising tendency of the amendment. We are not setting a target for the number of trust schools, because we believe that it is a choice and opportunity for governing bodies, which links to the local authority role of promoting diversity. It is right that that choice should develop from the empowerment of schools to decide to become more autonomous and make new partnerships, taking account of the needs of pupils, parents and the local communities that they serve.

Nick Gibb: The regulatory impact assessment’s estimates of future costings are based on 100 competitions a year. Where did the Department get that figure if, as the Minister says, the philosophy behind the policy is that it will just be allowed to happen?

Jacqui Smith: It is important that regulatory impact assessments take past experience into account. There are two slightly different issues. Competitions will emerge under the provisions of the Education Act 2005 where there are new schools and where there are reorganised schools. It is possible to consider historical trends in relation to primary and secondary reorganisations and new schools to meet new need, and to look ahead, particularly with the addition to the melting pot of the reorganisations that might happen as we roll out the building schools for the future programme across the country, and to posit a figure that will enable us to consider the regulatory impact. That is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, very different from setting a target that we want to achieve. It is right that the Government should consider the likely impact of a policy, but that does not imply setting a target for it. The two things are slightly different, because in the context of trust schools and using the opportunities that they can provide, it is not a question of need for a completely new school, or a competition, or a school  that has come through reorganisation; an existing school may decide that it wants to take on the relationship that goes with trust school status.

Nick Gibb: Does the right hon. Lady therefore accept that the Bill probably does not represent a pivotal moment in the direction of education policy in this country?

Jacqui Smith: Funnily enough, no I would not. The Bill represents an important development. As I identified, the shift in the clause from an emphasis on simply providing the right number of school places to a strengthened emphasis for local authorities in carrying out their duties on responding to parents, developing a diverse range of schools and maximising opportunities for choice in a range of ways, is a fundamental shift in the way in which we think about the local strategic planning of schools and the way in which the system will work.

John Hayes: May I be helpful again to the right hon. Lady? She really will owe me, at the end of the Committee, if I continue to be so helpful. Would it be fair to say:
“The purpose of the Bill is to secure delegation and to widen choice. We want to see more decision making in the hands of individual schools and colleges ... decisions will be taken at a local level”
and that, taken together, this
“represents a fundamental change in our education system”?—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 772.]

Jacqui Smith: Yes, I agree with that.

John Hayes: Those are the words of the Secretary of State on Second Reading of the Bill that became the Education Reform Act 1988. Is it fair to say, therefore, that the Government have learned the lessons that we learned some time ago—that delegating power to schools and widening choice would drive up standards? Does that represent a Pauline conversion?

Jacqui Smith: No. Perhaps it represents a recognition that 18 years of Conservative Government did not produce the maximised choice and high standards that we want and that it will take the present Government to do that. That is the lesson that I have learned.

Robert Wilson: Does the Minister see any tension developing between parental choice—such as not wanting academies and trusts—and the LEAs’ legal requirement under the Bill to promote diversity?

Jacqui Smith: Did the hon. Gentleman speak of parental choice in not wanting academies?

Robert Wilson: Yes.

Jacqui Smith: There is no evidence to date that parents do not want academies and the high-quality schools that are developing. A defining characteristic of our academies is that they have replaced half-empty, poorly performing schools with new schools, at which parents queue up to get their children in. All the evidence is that what we are doing is helping to provide what parents want for their children.

Edward Leigh: There might be another problem. I understand that trust schools are quite controversial in certain segments of the Labour party. Might not some Labour-dominated local authorities oppose the setting up of trust schools in every way possible? That happened when the Conservative Government tried to set up grant-maintained schools.

Jacqui Smith: It is not for local authorities to do that. There are two issues here. First, Labour local government leaders have supported the Bill because they think that it gives them the opportunity to drive standards higher in their areas. Secondly, the Bill does not give local authorities the ability to trump the decisions of school governing bodies about developing trust relationships. The political motives that the hon. Gentleman implies are present in Labour local government do not exist, and even if they did, the way in which the Bill is organised means that decisions about developing such partnerships are for local schools and their governing bodies to make.

Edward Leigh: That was precisely the case with the Conservative education reforms. We were going to make grant-maintained schools compulsory everywhere, but we were voted down in the House of Lords and parental ballots were brought in. There were massive campaigns in many schools, such as Toll Bar school in Humberside, which were organised by local authorities, although in theory they could not trump the proposal. I suspect that that will happen in many parts of the country. There will be huge campaigns led by left-wing councillors and others to stop schools from becoming trust schools.

Jacqui Smith: There is a fundamental difference between the trust school model and the GM model that the hon. Gentleman is harking back to. Trust schools could not be more different from grant-maintained schools. We are talking about schools that will be maintained by local authorities with the whole objective of drafting in the widest range of support to schools to the needs of every child in an area. The objective of grant-maintained schools was to take a few schools out of local authority control, to enable them to select a few pupils out of the system and to give them the only capital money that was around at the time. There could not be a more fundamental difference. That is why the trust school model will be popular with not only the schools who will make the relevant decisions, but the local authorities that will recognise its contribution to drafting in external support in their areas.

Edward Leigh: In that case, why have there been 50 Labour rebels? Why has the Bill caused the biggest row inside the Labour party for years if it is all so uncontroversial. A lot of people are very angry because they recognise that the Labour party is coming in our direction. It is nonsense to say that the models are completely different. We all know that the Bill makes a fundamental change. The Minister will have huge problems from massive local campaigns to stop schools from becoming trust schools.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman should let me worry about my colleagues. I should think that Conservative Front-Benchers have more to worry about, given the off-beam comments that he has been making about Conservative education policies.

Meg Hillier: Perhaps I can intervene to help my right hon. Friend—not that she needs much help—with a quote:
“Hackney has effectively been piloting many of”
the reforms
“over the last few years and they work, it is as simple as that.”
That is a quote from Jules Pipe, the elected mayor of Hackney, whose political vision has helped to drive the measures. In many respects, what is outlined in the Bill is already happening in Hackney.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She identifies that Labour political vision, which will be seen increasingly across the country as we go forward with the reforms.

Robert Wilson: I hope that the Minister is right to say that the trusts will be popular, but, as far as I am aware, they are not supported by the teaching trade unions and there have not been many expressions of interest from schools in becoming trust schools. Can the Minister tell us how many have shown such an interest?

Jacqui Smith: We have published information about schools and potential sponsors in the private and public sectors who have expressed an interest in this policy. Considering that we are only at the stage of debating the measure in Committee and the Bill is not yet an Act, that is pretty good progress. As my hon. Friend pointed out, local authorities and schools across the country are very interested. I have spoken to many head teachers in the months since the White Paper was published, who are interested in the opportunities that it will bring for their schools.

Nadine Dorries: Let us say that a Labour-controlled council containing Labour councillors who oppose the Bill—we know from our constituencies that some do—receives two bids to establish a school, one from a group of Christian parents and one from the council. How does the Minister think that that bid would go and what would be the Secretary of State’s role in the process? Surely, the Labour-controlled council would want to give preference to its own bid.

Jacqui Smith: If the hon. Lady had read the Bill in detail, as I am sure she has, she would know that the Secretary of State would not make the decision in such circumstances. If several proposals were received from promoters outside the local authority, it would be for the local authority to decide which of the proposals would best serve the interests of young people in the area—in consultation, of course, with local parents and local interest groups. If the local authority itself were putting forward a proposal, the decision would be made by the adjudicator on the basis of decision-making guidance, which this Committee will have considerable opportunity to discuss.

Sarah Teather: The right hon. Lady says that she has spoken to many head teachers who have expressed an interest, but the Department’s only answer to our freedom of information query suggested that only some two dozen schools had expressed an interest in becoming trust schools and that few sponsors had shown any interest in joining the scheme.

Jacqui Smith: Freedom of information queries are terribly exciting and conspiratorial, but that information was already in the public domain. We have already held three very useful seminars at No. 10 at which head teachers, Labour local authorities and private sector sponsors described the opportunities offered by the Bill. Higher education institutions, private sector partners, groups of head teachers and individual head teachers all think that they are very important opportunities. Would it not be nice if, for once, Liberal Democrats lifted their eyes to the opportunities rather than the perceived problems in legislation? They would be performing a better service for children if they did.

David Evennett: I do not want to defend the Liberal Democrats, but last Friday I had a representation from some hard working teachers, the secretary and some members of Bexley National Union of Teachers. They were fundamentally opposed to the Bill and to all the measures about which the Minister is waxing lyrical. Why does she think that NUT members, whom her colleagues have described in previous debates as tremendous teachers and professionals, are so fundamentally against it?

Jacqui Smith: I should declare an interest. I am an NUT member, and proud to be. In fact, I bet that NUT members do not appreciate comments such as
“I have met many teachers who do not have a clue how to teach or relate to children. Sometimes, those who have been at the sharp end of education know more about it.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 March 2006; c. 1.]
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) has more explaining to do to the NUT than I have.

Nadine Dorries: It is true.

Jacqui Smith: Well, when in a hole, carry on digging.

David Evennett: I, too, was a member of the NUT when I was a teacher in the 1970s, so I support the union, which does a lot of good work. However, the Minister has not answered my question.

Jacqui Smith: I was coming on to the hon. Gentleman’s question. There are many things in the Bill that the NUT not only welcomes but argued strongly for—the discipline provisions, for example. I do not suggest that the measures should not be debated inside and outside the world of education. I am simply stating that I believe, as do the Government, many head teachers, and Labour and Conservative local government leaders—I do not think that we have any Liberal Democrats, but we are working on it—that there are many important opportunities in the Bill.  That is what is important, and that is why we, a Labour Government, are taking forward the proposals.
Amendment No. 5, tabled by Conservative Members, would add to the clause the requirement to spread best practice between schools, which is not a bad principle. However, my first problem is that the clause bears on the strategic education functions of local authorities in relation to the provision of schools for all children. I do not believe that the amendment could operate in that context, applying to decisions on a wide range of authority functions relating to securing sufficient schools. Even if the scope of the clause lends itself to the amendment, which I do not think it does, requiring local authorities to spread best school practice would not have the effect intended.
School collaboration is one of the most powerful ways in which a strong, successful and innovative family of schools can be developed. There is much good work to be done by and an important role for local authorities to play in facilitating networking between schools and building up expertise. We expect local authorities to use their leadership and influence further to encourage collaborative working among schools—including independent schools, as we touched on earlier—to promote high standards and good behaviour and ensure a pattern of extended services that all children and young people will be able to access. Our proposals for trusts provide new opportunities for such collaboration. As I suggested earlier, although it is for school governing bodies to decide whether to acquire a trust, we expect that good local authorities will play a part in helping to broker relationships between schools and trust partners and that they might, in particular, consider the scope for trusts to support poorly performing schools.
Once again, this is a slightly centralising amendment from the Opposition. I see more benefits for schools and pupils in schools and staff working directly together to improve, because they know what works best for them and which strategies, however good they are for other schools, will translate into their context. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made an important point: the amendment implies that only the highest-performing schools have good practice to share. Actually, the experience of school collaborations and of the work done through the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust and other initiatives shows that the more obviously publicly successful schools and the less successful schools can learn equally from working in collaboration. There is an overly restrictive and centralising feel to the amendment and although I recognise and support the emphasis on sharing best practice, I do not think that it is likely to deliver.
I turn to the amendments proposed by my hon. Friends the Member for Bury, North and for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), especially amendment No. 97, which deals with the important issue of community cohesion and would require local  authorities to secure school provision with a view to contributing to
“social inclusion and community cohesion and ... ”
promoting
“equality of opportunity and good”
race relations.
In arguing for the amendment, my hon. Friends referred to faith schools. I believe, as do the Government, that faith schools have played and should continue to play an important role in providing high-quality education with a particular faith ethos for young people throughout the country. We welcome the fact, which has recently been accentuated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, that many faith schools are now operating open admissions arrangements. We explicitly recognise in the existing admissions code of practice the benefits of not having solely faith-based criteria for admissions to faith-based schools. We welcome the fact that last December the faith communities renewed their support for the non-statutory national framework for religious education through a joint statement signed by representatives. Its launch last month represented a genuine step forward for religious education and inclusiveness, particularly as all the signatories then made a further agreement that all children in faith schools will have access to inclusive religious education. This can only have a positive impact on community relations where faith schools are located. The signing of the statement is a good example of the way in which faith schools can work together to contribute to community cohesion. They can promote inclusion by developing partnerships with schools of other faiths, and with non-faith schools. The Government want there to be more of this kind of activity.

Sarah Teather: I welcome the Minister’s comments on faith schools. However, does she agree with me that much more work needs to be done in both Church of England and Catholic schools to stamp out practices whereby religion is used as a proxy for other aspects to do with economic wealth and ability? Has the Minister seen the research that suggests that in many faith schools—although not those run by the faith for the local community—the number of children taking free school meals is much lower than one might expect given the nature of the catchment area and the community as a whole, or of the faith community itself?

Jacqui Smith: Actually, I have seen research that suggests a much more complex situation. First, let us be clear that, because of the nature of faith school admissions, in many circumstances the admissions area will be much broader than for a school based solely on local catchment. Therefore, I do not think that some of the very crude measures of supposed social segregation necessarily lead to the conclusions that the hon. Lady drew. However, as I have said, I welcome the steps that faith bodies are already taking to ensure that admission to their often excellent schools is as broad and open as possible, and I hope that they continue.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister reply to the Liberal party spokesman’s question, because I had great difficulty understanding what she was trying to suggest?

Jacqui Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a bit unfair—fun though it is to gang up on the Liberal Democrats, he is being a bit unkind—and, in any case, I think I did respond to the hon. Lady’s point.
Let me return to the point my hon. Friends made, which is that despite the good progress in the way in which faith schools operate, there is an argument for legal certainty in respect of certain requirements on schools, such as to promote race equality or to ensure community cohesion. I can give my hon. Friends some reassurance on that. It is already the case that local authorities are under the duty prescribed in the Race Relations Act 1976 to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to promote equality of opportunity, and to promote good relations between persons of different ethnic groups. That duty applies to both local authorities and the governing bodies of individual schools, and in future it will also apply to the trusts that might support schools. Moreover, local authorities will be required specifically to consider the impact of proposed new schools on community cohesion when carrying out their new commissioning role. Local authorities will also be under a duty to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State when considering proposals. That will make it clear that they must consider the extent to which, and how satisfactorily in terms of the circumstances of the community, proposals for new schools promote community cohesion. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friends that the understandable and legitimate concerns represented by the amendment are taken into account in the policy approach.
Amendment No. 98 would place a duty on local authorities to secure fair access for all pupils in its area. It would specifically insert the words “fair access” into the clause. That—not the intention to ensure fair access—is of slight concern to me. Ensuring fair access for all children is a central theme of the Bill and because that message is so pervasive, and because we did not feel that simply putting the words “ensure fair access” on the face of the Bill would deliver fair access, we decided to take a different approach to ensuring that it is embodied in the range of provisions throughout the White Paper and the Bill.
The measures through which that duty to promote fair access is delivered include the following: the changes that we are making to admissions arrangements; the emphasis that we are putting on personalised learning; the enhanced school transport offer; the advice and support for parents in expressing a preference about a school for their child; and the duty that we discussed in clause 1 to promote high standards and the fulfilment by every child of their educational potential. Alongside the other provisions, that seemed to us the most effective way of ensuring that we attain our shared objective, which is fair access for all children to the opportunities that we think the Bill and our reforms embody.

David Chaytor: I appreciate the Minister’s response to the points that I raised in relation to that the amendment, but does not her argument not apply in exactly the same way to the two provisions that are in clause 2 on “securing diversity” and “increasing opportunities”? Simply having them in clause 2 will not, of itself, ensure that diversity and choice are enhanced—it is the provisions elsewhere in the Bill that will ensure that. But that does not undermine the need to have a clause that sets out the basic principles underlying the Bill. There is powerful argument that if clause 2 is necessary to specify the basic principles of diversity and choice, it should also specify the basic principle of fair access.

Jacqui Smith: I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend. Ensuring fair access depends on a broader range of legislative measures than, for example, ensuring diversity, which has a specific impact on and changes the existing legal requirements on school organisation and the provision of places requirement to which the clause relates. I am not unsympathetic to his arguments. I undertake to consider at more length how we might be able to make completely explicit the assurance that I have given the Committee today that fair access objective is fundamental to the whole of the Bill.
Amendment No. 161 relates to the range of provision for children with special educational needs. It would add an additional requirement to section 14 of the Education Act 1996, which sets out local authorities’ duties relating to the provision of school places, to include a duty to secure a range of provision for pupils with special education needs. The Opposition have raised an important issue and it is important that it is discussed in relation to the clause. My argument is not about whether it is right to secure that range of provision, but that the amendment is unnecessary as local authorities are already required, when exercising their functions under the same section of the 1996 Act, to have regard to the need to ensure that special educational provision is secured for pupils who have special educational needs. They also have a specific duty under section 315 of the 1996 Act to keep under review the arrangements made by them for special educational provision.
I fully agree with the sentiment expressed in the amendment that local authorities need to ensure that pupils with special educational needs and their parents have a diverse choice of school provision. That is why the new duty will bear on all their existing duties under section 14, including provision for students with special educational needs.

Nadine Dorries: The Minister mentioned that the provision is already available, but we know, by the large number of parents and children who are having to access the special educational needs and disability tribunal and go through the tribunal procedure, that what is needed is not happening now. I cannot see anything in the Bill that will improve that situation.

Jacqui Smith: I think that several elements of the Bill do that, some of which I shall describe in a moment, but let us consider what we discussed earlier in the week: the requirement to ensure the educational fulfilment of every child. The emphasis on personalised learning and ensuring the progress and fulfilment of educational potential will very much ensure that the needs of every child, including those with special educational needs, are reflected not just in the range of provision available, but in the way in which teaching and learning is organised and teacher skills are developed. All of those things are very important and part of the overall approach of the Bill and the next stage of reform.
Throughout the Bill, we have made it clear that local authorities should take seriously their duties to provide diverse and high quality provision for children with special educational needs. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), in referring to the support of the National Autistic Society for the amendment, also emphasised the need for a range of provision and support—interestingly, not just for special schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, in reporting on the current inquiry being carried out by the Select Committee, also made that point strongly.
As far as provision for children with special educational needs is concerned, we should start from the point of an individual child’s needs and ensure that we organise a range of provision in the system, including special schools and units alongside mainstream schools, of which we are seeing increasing numbers. Children can benefit from the specific specialised support of such units, the social benefits that often come from mixing with other children and support within mainstream classes as well. Of course, that necessitates a focus on the professional development and training of teachers.

Nadine Dorries: If the funding allocated to a child with special needs was velcroed to that child and stayed with them when they went to mainstream school, perhaps those objectives could be realised, but it is not and we know that it is not. It disappears into the funding pool of the school, it is dispersed and not allocated to that child, as many head teachers tell me at every school I visit. If there were provision in the Bill for funding to be allocated to a child with special needs and stay with that child, those objectives might be realised, but until that happens, I do not think that they can.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady will know that there is already a considerable additional investment being made into children and young people with special needs. The way in which we ensure that funding is identified for and spent on support to develop the possibilities for children with special educational needs in mainstream schools is an issue. The hon. Lady used the word velcroed. I am not sure that the tight ring-fencing she describes would be the most effective way in which we could develop the range of that support, but I agree that it is important that where support is  identified, it is provided for those children and young people so that they can make the best of their educational opportunities.

John Hayes: I am following the discussion with some interest because, as I said when we last met, the right hon. Lady and I sat on either side of a Committee room like this discussing special needs some time ago. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that the critical point in relation to the exchange that the Minister just enjoyed with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire concerns specificity and quantification in relation to what is provided to meet the stated need of the child. There is still some doubt about those matters, which was reflected by my hon. Friend’s intervention.
I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to give us an absolute assurance that she is mindful of the importance of those two things. Perhaps they should be considered again, given what my hon. Friend said. It is a growing view that in some cases specificity and quantification are not what they might be.

Jacqui Smith: The issues of specificity and quantification relate specifically to the way in which provision is laid out in statements. That is not the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire raised, but I agree that it is an important issue. We have made progress; we made some during the course of the legislation to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) refers. Where there are difficulties, as the hon. Lady demonstrated when she came to see me about the case to which she referred on Tuesday, and there is evidence that a local authority is not fulfilling the requirements and determining its statements systematically, the Department can investigate the matter and ensure that it is put right. That is what happened in the circumstances that the hon. Lady outlined.

Angela Smith: Has not the “Every Child Matters” agenda given local authorities a clear duty to ensure that money attached to a special needs child by way of a statement is properly spent by schools on the support necessary for that child? Is it not for decent local authorities to ensure that the money allocated is spent properly by schools, and to hold schools to account?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Accountability is necessary for schools, so that local authorities can ensure that funding is spent properly. In the end, we should measure and challenge the outcomes for children with special educational needs. That is crucial.
Local authorities have an important role to play in school organisation in the broadest sense. The legislation will increase that role. For example, local authorities will be able to propose alterations to existing special educational needs provision, and propose new special schools. Special schools will have the same opportunities as mainstream schools to acquire trust status, and the process for existing non-maintained and independent schools to enter the  maintained sector with local authority approval will be simplified. The legislation will make important improvements and changes.

Nadine Dorries: The Minister is being very generous. Would it not assist proposals for new special schools or special units attached to mainstream schools if the funding were hypothecated—if it could be used only for children with special needs? Would it not assist in the proposal process if the people proposing a school knew that the funding would go towards that unit specifically? Would it not make for a more attractive option?
With regard to what the—

Christopher Chope: Order. That is a long enough intervention.

Jacqui Smith: I have responded to that issue. The statementing process enables the identification of special needs and funding for children and young people entering special schools.
In conclusion, we are determined to transform our school system into one that responds better to the needs and aspirations of parents. Every parent needs to be confident that the system delivers for their child, and every community should be confident that all parents can choose an excellent school. That is why we want a dynamic system, with weak schools quickly improved or replaced, coasting schools pushed to improve, and the best schools able to spread their ethos and success throughout the system. The clause will go a long way to ensure that that vision, which is a reality in some areas, is a reality in all. In light of my arguments, I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, East will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Nick Gibb: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chope. It will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in the coming weeks.
I am grateful to the Minister for her clear response and for taking the trouble to go through all the arguments and address them individually. That is important in Committee. She made a jibe at the Conservative party’s range of opinions. I make no apology for that; it is part of the democratic process. However, we are united when it comes to key votes in the House, and we did not have 52 rebels in the wrong Lobby that particular day. We have a clear, overarching approach to policy. This party is determined to see a rise in standards in our schools. We want more good schools and more places in good schools. When 23 per cent. of secondary schools are officially regarded as underperforming—that is the view of the Department for Education and Skills—there clearly is a problem in our education system. We are four-square behind the Government in any attempt that they make to raise standards in those schools, which is my party’s No. 1 concern when it comes to education policy.
I was disappointed by the Minister’s response on the issue of surplus places, which arose in interventions during her speech. She spoke about giving advice and  pointing a spotlight on the issue. I hope that she will use the powers later in the Bill to close poorly performing schools as a way of addressing the problem and not just take an insouciant approach to it. I hope that I have used “insouciant” correctly—with my education, I never know. Nor do I know the plural of ethos.

Jacqui Smith: You do. I told you.

Nick Gibb: Yes, the Minister told me.
We need to take dramatic action and close poorer performing schools. That would be a good way of dealing with the growing surplus places issue.
There was an interesting discussion about collaboration between schools to enable the establishment of vocational courses, which can be quite expensive, particularly with the large array of vocational courses—10 different categories of vocational training—that we envisage for the future. It makes me wonder about the original vision in the 1960s, when comprehensive schools were established. What thought was given to how a small school—or even a large one of, say, 2,000 pupils—would provide the full array of academic and less academic education that was envisaged in such schools? That is another example of the poor thinking that went on when those schools were established.
On Second Reading, Labour Members commented on the thinking at the time. I believe that it was the Chairman of the Education Committee who said that there should have been more thinking when those schools were established in the mid-1960s and onwards about how they would operate, and he was right. What was the vision for vocational education in comprehensive schools? It is clear that such thinking was not done, and we have suffered from the lack of vision in the 30 to 40 years since.
I take the right hon. Lady’s point on our amendment No. 88. As it was only a probing amendment, I am happy not to press it further.
The Minister said that she had spoken to many head teachers who are keen to acquire trusts. I am sure that there are many of them, and my party will do all that it can to promote trust status and to help her achieve the objectives of the White Paper, which states at paragraph 2.5:
“We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust.”
I do not know whether that is an example of the Government’s centralising tendency, but my party would support an exhortation to schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust.
The Minister expressed support for the principle of spreading best practice but gave technical reasons for not including it in the Bill—that is disappointing—and then went on to say that best practice is being spread through collaboration. However, spreading best practice and collaboration are not quite the same thing. She is confusing two points. Collaboration is important, particularly if there is to be provision for a wide array of subjects, but there may be no schools in the top quartile of the value-added league tables in a particular geographical area. It would be difficult just  through collaboration with neighbouring schools to spread best practice, as the only practice in schools in that area is practice that perhaps should not be spread, if those schools are languishing at the bottom of the value-added league table.
The gap between the best state schools and the worst state schools, or even between the best state schools and the average state school, is too wide. The Minister’s predecessor, who is now the Minister of Communities and Local Government, said that the gap was too wide. If one could apply the best practice of the best schools, it would be much narrower. That is the objective of Members on this side of the House.
It was good that the Minister said that the issue of special educational needs is important, that she agrees in principle with the amendment and that there should be a widespread choice of provision. However, I was disappointed by her view that that is already in the legislation. She said that local authorities are already required to have regard to ensuring that such provision is made and that specialist provision and special schools for those with moderate or severe learning difficulties must be kept under review. Having regard to and keeping under review is a weak requirement for local authorities and clause 37, which covers admissions, changes the phrase “have regard to” to “act in accordance with”. If “act in accordance with” is good enough for the admissions code, I would have thought that a more stringent requirement on local authorities to provide a diverse range of provision for those with special educational needs would also be necessary. I do not see why admissions is a more important issue than provision for special educational needs.

John Hayes: This is an important point. The concerns that have been expressed in the Committee, with understandable passion because of the particular disadvantages faced by special needs children, strongly support my hon. Friend’s assertion. We must understand that provision for special needs children is a fundamental part of our considerations and every local authority must take its responsibility very seriously. My hon. Friend makes a strong point and I hope the Minister will consider it and table an amendment later if she cannot accept the one before us.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. There is real concern that local authorities are closing special schools, particularly those that specialise in helping children with moderate learning difficulties. One purpose of the amendment is to bring a halt to the closure of those special schools in particular.

Angela Smith: My local authority has closed a number of special schools, but only to rebuild and reorganise them. Surely it is wrong to follow a policy of recommending a moratorium on the closure of special schools when that would result only in stopping the building of new special schools to give the very best to our SEN children.

Nick Gibb: I am always suspicious about closures to reorganise or to rebuild. Schools can be rebuilt without being closed. There are many clever contractors who can rebuild schools while they remain open. It is not always necessary to close them. I am not convinced that that is the motivation for many local authorities when those schools disappear.

Mary Creagh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our discussion in Committee on Tuesday and the difficulties that our Chairman had demonstrate the dangers and wrongs of educating people with special needs—he mentioned the closure of schools for the deaf—in a segregated system? People who are educated in a segregated system, as we all were, have no awareness of the need to speak clearly and to remove their hands from their mouths so that people who are profoundly deaf from birth or who acquire hearing loss can hear them. Does he agree that the debate in the Committee on Tuesday and the difficulties of our Chairman illustrate that point exactly? That is why deaf people’s education should not be segregated.

Nick Gibb: I think it is for parents to decide. I do not know what is best for a particular child with hearing difficulties, nor do I know what is right for a child with moderate or severe learning difficulties. Parents know what is right for their children but if there is no provision for special schools it is difficult for them to exercise a choice.
The brief from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People gives all sorts of reasons for having specialist schools. For example, children might benefit from being in acoustically treated classrooms and I am not aware of any mainstream school that has such classrooms. Parents may wish their child to be in a peer group of other deaf children so that they can become friends and perhaps know each other throughout their lives. They may wish their child to be educated within a signing community, which uses British sign language. The child may have specialist problems such as learning difficulties in addition to hearing difficulties, and the combination of those two problems may necessitate a school that has specialist, trained teachers. It is up to the parents of the child to decide.
We must therefore ensure that there are available provisions that enable parents to make those decisions, and that the local authority makes the parents aware of them. Some parents are not even told of the existence of certain schools when they approach the local education authority about education provision for their children because that authority has an agenda that all children should be in mainstream schools. That may be right for some children but as the hon. Lady hinted, it is not right for hon. Members or local authorities to have an agenda that all children, regardless of their particular needs, should be in mainstream schools because we want to educate ourselves about how to deal with, or talk to, someone who has hearing difficulties. That is not the purpose of education provision; its purpose is to provide the best education for every child’s needs.

Mary Creagh: We have talked about education lasting a lifetime. Children in mainstream schools can learn to use sign language. If people are to enter mainstream employment, they will not be in exclusively deaf and signing environments and eventually they will either have to teach their colleagues to sign or learn how to lip read.

Christopher Chope: Order. Interventions must be brief. If the hon. Lady wants to make a speech, she will be able to do so in due course.

Nick Gibb: I have made my point, that preparing children who have very severe problems for life in the real world is a specialist form of teaching, which requires long training and expertise. In many mainstream schools, that expertise does not exist, and even if it did it would be very expensive. Some parents feel that they want that expertise for their child and we should provide it communally, as a state.

Meg Hillier: I am concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s comments and the policy of the moratorium on the closure of special schools. Do the Conservatives propose to preserve in aspic exactly the present set-up for special schools? Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that with medical advances there are often different categories of disability that need more specialised specialist schools? There is agreement on both sides of the Committee that we need specialist schools; the question is how they are configured. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they should never be closed and reconfigured, the better to meet the needs of groups of children with certain disabilities?

Nick Gibb: Perhaps. The hon. Lady is right, but that does not mean that there should be a policy of closing these schools, which is what is happening. The purpose of the amendment is to extend parental choice.

Annette Brooke: I have much sympathy with the words of the amendment, but I am worried about some of what the hon. Gentleman said. Can he assure me that the amendment includes giving full support within a mainstream school for a child with special needs if that is the most appropriate way of educating that child? The hon. Gentleman’s words are not making that clear.

Nick Gibb: I thought that my words were making it clear. Mainstream education is right for some children; there is no question about that. But these are matters for parents, and parents cannot have genuine choice if there is a policy to close special schools. No one is talking about closing specialist provision within mainstream schools; the debate is about whether the special schools for those with moderate learning difficulties should remain open. We believe very strongly that they should, but not necessarily preserved in aspic; they can be expanded and new ones can be provided that have the specialism that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch mentioned. We believe strongly that there should not be a policy of closure, and I will therefore divide the Committee on amendment No. 161.

David Chaytor: I shall respond briefly on amendments Nos. 97 and 98. The clause is one of the shortest in the Bill, yet it is arguably the most profoundly important, as it deals with two of the Bill’s central concepts.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.